posted on July 9, 2004 02:10:12 AM new
Serious charges being made here....might even encourage more to vote FOR Nader ...if they believe the dems are becoming obstructionists.
------
FOXFAN CENTRAL
Nader Accuses Dems of 'Mini-Watergate'
Friday, July 09, 2004
WASHINGTON — Democrats could be participating in a "mini-Watergate" effort to get Ralph Nader (search) out of the presidential picture, the consumer advocate charged Thursday.
"They're hiring lawyers to go up to technicalities in places like Arizona, they infiltrated our political convention," Nader, an independent candidate for president, told FOX News on Thursday. "I spoke to John Kerry and said 'you'd better look into it because it could be a mini-Watergate, possibly."
Nader said he hasn't yet heard back from the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, who is hoping to oust President Bush from the White House in the November elections.
"This is pretty serious, when you try to lock the civil liberties of American just to get on the ballot so people can vote for the candidate of their choice," Nader continued.
Nader was denied a spot on the Arizona ballot and last Friday again accused the Democrats and Kerry of engaging in political "dirty tricks."
Just hours before the developments in Arizona, Nader complained that the Democratic Party has "stepped up its obstruction tendencies" in challenging his ballot access.
The consumer advocate said he had called the Kerry campaign three times last Thursday, asking to chat with the candidate.
"We have to get a clarification if they're going to engage in dirty tricks," Nader told reporters at a news conference to criticize multinational corporations.
The Kerry campaign dismissed Nader's complaints, arguing that Democrats were following the rules when they legally challenged Nader's signatures to get on the ballot. "These are rules that have been on the books for years and they ought to be followed," said Chad Clanton, who added that the Massachusetts senator would be happy to talk to Nader.
In Arizona, supporters of Nader abandoned their effort to get the independent candidate on the presidential ballot after Democrats challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.
Nader's campaign had submitted more than 22,000 signatures to Arizona election officials June 9 -- far more than the 14,694 valid signatures required by state law to compete against President Bush and Kerry.
"They really erect all kinds of barriers blocking voices and choices," Nader told FOX News of such alleged Democratic acts.
Although he's no fan of Republicans, the GOP "don't whine and carp like the Democrats," Nader said, adding that 10 times more Democrats "deserted the party" and voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for him.
When asked if Republicans are working behind the scenes to get him on the ballot, Nader said he doesn't know much about that but "we've seen lots of examples of Democrats trying to obstruct us ? this is a fight for all third parties and independent candidates."
And with a reported 42 percent of Americans wanting troops to return from Iraq; over half of whom think it was mistake to send them there, Nader said, "there's no candidacy except the Nader-Camejo ticket speaking for them," adding that he provides the only anti-war platform for voters this year.
Nader is scheduled to debate former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in Washington on Friday. Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic primaries until his campaign seemed to internally combust; he later dropped out of the race.
"Dean really made his mark by being against the war now he's back into the fold so we'll have fun tomorrow," Nader said.
Nader told reporters last week that he expects to get on about as many state ballots as he did in 2000 when his name was listed in 43 states and the District of Columbia. So far, he has not gotten on any ballot independently.
Many Democrats blame Nader, the Green Party (search) candidate four years ago, for taking votes from Democrat Al Gore and helping ensure President Bush's election.
He has been endorsed by the Reform Party (search), which has ballot lines in at least seven states.
Fox News' Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on July 9, 2004 02:16:41 AM new
So - when the democrrats challenge the legalitiy of signatures thereby verifying legal voting status they are enaging in a mini-watergate?
I thought you were for voter reform.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 9, 2004 02:35:43 AM new fenix - The dems weren't going to these extreme measures in 2000. It's like they've got a 'mission' now...a vendetta.
What do you think kerry will say IF he ever replies to Nader's question? Think he'll have a good explanation for why they've gone to such lengths.....like paying lawyers to be sure he doesn't get on the ballots?
posted on July 9, 2004 04:02:21 AM new
Nader is nothing more than a has-been who is doing whatever he can to feed his already over inflated ego. He's been that way for years. I admired him back in the 60's and a bit in the 70's, but I have very little respect for the man or his followers today. He needs to find a lonely piece of land somewhere and retire there. These current accusations are no different than the ones he's made in past elections. How pathetic.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jul 9, 2004 04:03 AM ]
posted on July 9, 2004 10:13:42 AM new
It's interesting that the only people starting threads about Nader here are the Bush supporters. Either they really care about the democratic process, or they know he's Bush's only hope. Gee, I wonder which it is?? "LOL"
___________________________________
If the world made sense, men would ride sidesaddle.
posted on July 9, 2004 05:14:58 PM new
What Nader means by this is that he thought the Deomocrats were in danger of acting like Republicans by trying to keep Nader out of the race. If you will recall, it was Republican minions who broke into the Democratic Party's National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel in 1972 with the intention of bugging them. There was also a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats.
What Nader has to say about the Republicans:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388254/
"Republicans have been trying to destroy civil justice, the pillar of our democracy. John Edwards, a trial lawyer knows its importance. Plus, he’s ivory soap with a smile, which is a contrast to the snarling Dick Cheney."
He also says, rightfully, that the Democrats have to step up to the plate on justice issues instead of sitting on their hands.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 10, 2004 11:46:15 AM new
Here is an editorial I wrote regarding Ralph Nader last week for a political group of friends and family. I've received nothing but positive response from it from them, so I'll throw it to the wolves and see what happens. On a side note, I've been a registered Pacific Green for several years, and the last election I voted for Ralph Nader. I was also on the State Board of Directors for Florida PIRG in the mid 90's, PIRG was created by Ralph Nader. I am a Naderite, however, as you see, I am also quite critical of him and his choices this year.
------------------
Nader trys to get on the 2004 Oregon Presidential Ballot
Nader is using a rare tactic here in Oregon, which allows candidates to get 1000 signatures in a 3 hour period to qualify for the Presidential race. He attempted this in April, but could only get about 750 signatures then. He blamed the NCAA Mens Basketball Final Four for the bad showing. Ironically, this was a man who drew about 10,000 people who paid $7 each to hear him speak months before the 2000 election. To say that very liberal minded Portland was incapable of giving up one night of basketball to inflict progressive change is quite an insult to our great city, and Ralph Nader himself. I would hope that at least a quarter of those 10,000 people who showed for his rally in 2000 would make the right choice. Perhaps they did, and the basketball tournament wasn't their distraction. Maybe it was hard for people to get behind someone who would interfere with their main goal of removing Bush from the White House this year.
Conservatives and Naderites Join Hands
Unfortunately, Nader decided to give it another try last weekend, and thanks to these neo-conservatives, he was successful. I still think that Nader deserves to be on the ballot in every state. Who can argue that any man wishing to run for President shouldn't be if he qualifies? However, this is simply another dirty tactic being used by the conservatives. Nader is becoming their play toy as they use Nader like a puppet and he of all people is accepting his roll. I am ashamed he would do such a thing.
I would have thought a statement like, "thanks, but no thanks" to these organizations would have given him just a bit more credibility in his Presidential run, but we are beginning to see what a little ego and self-righteousness can do to a man. I don't believe Nader ever felt that he was a spoiler in the last election. I do think he was sincere in trying to create change and was dead on in saying there were little differences in political policy making between the Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have done little to improve the growing corporate takeover of America. I am confident things would have been handled differently if 9/11 happened during a Gore Presidency though. I would not wish these times on any leader and did sympathize with Bush (as a man, not a leader) during the few months after the attack. I don't think Kerry is necessarily the answer, I think he is just the best patch currently over a very large crack in a dam that Bush has created.
Nader in 2000
As a very strong proponent of a 3rd party system, I encouraged Nader in 2000 to run against Bush and Gore. Many believed Nader was the cause of Gore's loss, however, I have strongly disagreed with that. I believe that Gore didn't make a strong enough candidate for those courted by Nader (aka the far left), and I also believe Gore lost the election by a technicality even though he won the majority of the votes in the United States. This time around is a different story altogether. I really think Nader may be pushing to make a very bold statement. What if Nader's tactic is to put Bush in the White House for another four years? What if Nader believes that by making America go so far to the right (wrong), that it will anger so many fence-sitters, so many liberals and even 1/4 of Republicans that they would never vote for a Republican again. Perhaps his goal is to create change by creating chaos. Maybe he is using a tactic often referred to as "one step back, two steps forward".
The best tactic for a 3rd party to become a factor
Over the last month I have painfully thought and decided that the best tactic to bring a true 3rd party into America politics is a gradual grassroots strategy. The Green Party needs to take a 28 year approach to the Presidency. They need to get out of their Birkenstocks and Tie-Dyes and into suits and ties (Rick pointed this out). They need to focus on the future through the present. They should be organizing on the local level, affecting city and county seats during the first 12 years, moving towards state positions in the 16th and 20th year and eventually to Governorships and the Presidency for the 28th year. That is 7 four year terms. Ironically, I think there is a Native American saying about preserving the earth for the future 7 generations. It may be lengthy, but it is the easiest strategy financially, and lends credibility to a party that could grow immensly over the long haul. If their players during those 28 years have integrity, the people will remember.
The Presidential Face on Politics
A legitimate 3rd party will need to have a mover and shaker to be taken seriously as a 3rd party Presidential candidate. Let's look at past third party candidates. Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and John Anderson were the more popular ones in the last 25 years. Most were highly intelligent, but none were eye-candy for the American voter. I'm talking about a serious candidate who the people can understand, someone who doesn't have an earth hippie/Native American VP candidate, someone who doesn't have to repeat the same words and jokes over and over to hit the homerun, someone that can hold their own in a debate, and yes, as unfortunate as it is, someone who isn't an eyesore for people to hear or see. Nader, Kucinich and Dean are great, but none were Presidential material. Nader is too boring, Kucinich is too ugly, and Dean is too angry. We need a true leader who is balanced with charisma, leadership, and yes, good looks. It reminds me of the time a 75 year old volunteer I worked with told me that Bill Clinton was a hunk. That was hysterical, but he was respected and admired by many for many different reasons.
posted on July 10, 2004 11:55:38 AM new
I took this from a conservative radio station website: 760 KFMB in San Diego. Funny how the Linda K and the other neo-cons (don't you just love that term "neo-con"- it rolls so smoothly off my tongue) think it is the Democrats who are playing dirty against Nader. Being that I live in Portland Oregon, I would say it is the conservatives who are playing dirty by pushing support for Nader to be on the ballot when they don't even come close to supporting his platform and ideologies. Go figure...
--------------
POLITICS: CONSERVATIVES TRY TO GET NADER ON BALLOT
( 06-25-2004 ) - Two conservative groups have been phoning people around Oregon this week, urging them to attend Ralph Nader's convention Saturday in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot.
The groups make no bones about their goal - to draw votes away from Democrat John Kerry and help President Bush win this battleground state in November.
"We disagree with Ralph Nader's politics, but we'd love to see him make the ballot," said Russ Walker of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group best known for its opposition to tax increases.
The Oregon Family Council also has been working the phones to boost attendance at Nader's event - with the idea that it could help Bush this fall.
"We aren't bashful about doing it," said Mike White, the group's director. "We are a conservative, pro-family organization, and Bush is our guy on virtually every issue."
Even if it comes from an unusual source, Nader can probably use the help, given that this will be his second attempt to win a spot on Oregon's ballot.
In April, Nader held an evening rally in Portland that was intended to attract 1,000 people needed to sign petitions to put him on the ballot. Only 741 showed up.
Nader placed some of the blame on supporters tuning in the NCAA basketball championship game, which occurred the same night, rather than attend the rally.
The 70-year-old consumer activist plans to travel to Portland for the second convention, which will be held at a local high school.
The move by the Republican-leaning groups to boost attendance at Nader's mini-convention is legal.
State law says that for Nader to qualify for the ballot as independent candidate, he need only draw 1,000 registered votes - regardless of their party affiliation - together in one place to sign petitions for him.
The head of Nader's Oregon campaign, Greg Kafoury, said he's had no contact with the two conservative groups that have been calling people this week. But he said he's not bothered by their actions, either.
If Nader qualifies for Oregon's ballot, polls suggest that he could be a factor in whether Kerry or Bush wins the seven electoral votes of this swing state in November.
posted on July 10, 2004 12:15:06 PM newconservatives who are playing dirty by pushing support for Nader to be on the ballot when they don't even come close to supporting his platform and ideologies. Go figure...
Has nothing to do with 'dirty tricks'....and it's agreed they don't come close to supporting his platform.
But that's NOT the issue.
The issue is the republicans are supporting our democracy by not restricting those who wish to join the the election process - while the dems are showing their true colors....as obstructionists.
posted on July 10, 2004 02:03:09 PM new
Linda, you are really making me laugh so hard that milk could possibly come out my nose. Hmmm. Only if I was drinking milk...
What are you smoking over there? Seriously... I may want some.
To even consider that challenging the validity of signatures is dirty is so fascist. Oh, wait... I forgot. Your a Republican who benefited from the cheating that went on by your party during the last election... Now I get it. Just like I'm sure you support the idea of using Diebold's voting machines that have yet to produce consistent results, and do not allow for a proper recount if needed.
Now, let's look at the facts. Nader couldn't get 1000 signatures in April here in Portland when he first attempted this method. Perhaps you have never been to Portland, OR. Let me just tell you. I was among the 10,000 people that showed up for Ralph Nader's rally in 2000 here in Portland, Oregon. 10,000 people!!! These were people who each paid $7.00 to help Ralph's campaign. Not so ironic that George Bush Sr. once referred to Portland, OR as "Little Beirut" because of his warm welcomes when he would visit our great city. Portland is the same city that rallied 20-40,000 people for war protests. Portland is a haven for hippies, leftists, tree huggers, bicyclists, latte drinking democrats, etc. Mind you, many people in Portland, Oregon love Ralph Nader. I love Ralph Nader. However, in April, Ralph couldn't even get 800 signatures to get on the ballot. So, he tried again. This time with the help of two anti-Nader conservative organizations who pushed their Republican coherts to help out Ralph. All of a sudden, he manages to find 1000 signatures, some of which were questionable. This is extremely typical here in Oregon. Challenging signatures numbers is standard practice here where we get about 5-10 signature initiatives on the ballot each election. There are probably 20-30 measures that gather signatures, but many are unsuccessful. Both sides challenge each other, especially when it is close. Notice, I say both sides. So, to claim that the Democrats are doing something dirty, is plain dumb. It is a right of passage in Oregon to be challenged. If Ralph has everything in order, then he gets on the ballot. No big deal if you ask me, especially since I believe everyone has a right to be on the ballot. The issue I have is ethical.
The neo-cons will literally do anything to win, and this is another perfect example of their tactics in action. It won't work, and I will tell you why... It has to do with the numbers. If Ralph Nader had 10,000 supporters in Portland in 2000, and he only has 1000, of which half are Republicans, it simply won't add up.
posted on July 10, 2004 02:16:30 PM newTo even consider that challenging the validity of signatures is dirty is so fascist.
You voted for Nader in 2000 and now you're calling him a fascist? That IS funny.
That's funny since it is NADER who brought what HE sees as obstructionism and harassment of his campaign, by the dems, to the attention of the media. HE who is speaking out about the DEMS actions that go against our democratic process.
I love how you try to turn this around.
NADER is the one who feels this way.....SOME republicans support his right to run...while the Democratic *PARTY* - not some democrats are doing all they can to take away the voting rights of his 'base' supporters - those anti-war voters.
posted on July 10, 2004 02:46:46 PM new
Yes, you read me correctly Linda. It is a fascist move on Nader's part. Let the Dems check the signatures. If he's legit, then he gets on the ballot. You see, I am not opposed to Nader being on the ballot.
You also have completely, as you say, "turned this around" because I for one feel any person should be on the ballot that meets the requirement. Here is exactly what I said, "If Ralph has everything in order, then he gets on the ballot. No big deal if you ask me, especially since I believe everyone has a right to be on the ballot."
As my post also said, my issue is an ethical one. Simply put, Nader's ego has obviously grown beyond his small head. His platform of ethics have now been lost because he has accepted the help of those who don't support his platform to begin with. He is letting them use him for a pawn for their benefit. Both Nader and these organizations should be ashamed of themselves.
I am sure you are rolling over right now trying to figure out where I stand, because I am actually challenging Ralph Nader and his latest tactics. None of this would have been an issue if he simply came out and said, "Thanks, but no thanks."
posted on July 10, 2004 02:55:13 PM new
I'm not 'twisting' anything, rusty.
It's quite clear....Nader is making these statements....HE is using his right of free speech to speak out about what the *democratic party* is doing to him. Calling it like HE sees it.
And the left is trying to do everything they can to prevent him from getting on the ballots.
Those are the facts....doesn't matter whether anyone thinks he SHOULD be on the ballot or not.
posted on July 10, 2004 03:01:44 PM new
Personally - I just see the whole thing as uncontestable proof that the republicans think they are in trouble and would do anything save their butts in this election. If they were truly so sure that their candidate was the best choice for our country and truly believed in a democratic process they would concentrate on strengtheningtheir candidate rather that trying dilute the votes for the opposition.
If they thought the majority of the coutnry wanted Bush, it would not matter how many votes Kerry gets.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jul 10, 2004 03:04 PM ]
posted on July 10, 2004 03:35:03 PM new
Linda K- "whereas we clearly see the dems don't - by their obstructionist actions."
another clear attempt to bash the Democrats because the GOP can't keep their dogs on leashes. You're reasoning that the GOP is helping the "Democratic Process" is a joke.
if the Republicans were so into helping this process, they would be involved in Voter Registration drives, and would support an election system that uses voting machines that work properly, not looking to a Republican funded business such as Diebold to have voting machines rigged for the upcoming election, and to boot, they can't even give us a recount if the vote is within that ever so important 1%. Keep in mind that a recount is law, and for some strange reason, Republicans didn't want to help the voter process in our last election. They were more concerned about removing valid voters from the voter lists, and not allowing a recount which was law. Don't give me your crap BS about Republicans helping the Democratic Process. Republican Democratic Process is simply an oxymoron.
posted on July 10, 2004 03:53:27 PM new
I understand that anything that ever happens is always the Republicans fault, in the MINDS of some.
Just who selects and makes decisions on which company gets the contracts for voting machines? All these conspiracy theories about how the republicans are 'rigging' the elections by putting in voting machines that are going to make all the votes go to Bush....crack me up.
It wasn't the republicans who were bitching newer machines were needed as the other one's were faulty....and cost THEM the election. Even thought those same machines won the election for clinton in 1992 & 6.
And now because, as in anything new, there can be problems that need addressing and things that need to be fixed.....it's all a conspiracy by the republicans.....just another way to 'feed' their corporate donors.
Might want to take a look and see just how the dems are clammering to get those 'big corporate' dollars for themselves.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:00:54 PM new
another unfounded claim by Linda. Perhaps you should research it a bit Linda. Tell us what you find when you research how much dinero Diebold and their Board have contributed to the Bush campaign. You'll probably still want to deny it, even if it came directly from Diebold's website, or Bush's. As usual, you simply can't take the heat.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:20:36 PM new
When you see the big grinning faces, you can tell that Linda is feeling the heat. They are like nervous tics for Linda.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:31:37 PM new
aw, i just like poking at her. Poor Linda. She really is the only one on here that responds regularly, though not all that well at times. EAG won't answer questions. He just makes claims.
No one has really spoken about the fall of the Bush Administration as it nears. The bigger they are, the harder they will fall. That evil whirlwind and hollow sound between George Bush's ears are getting louder and louder as his administration falls apart, and his time nears its natural 4 year end.
What will many of these neo-con posters do once George loses, only time will tell, but I am guessing they'll begin to bash Kerry and forget how anti-American that would be.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:37:28 PM new
Ha! I just read the opening post and you wonder WHY I think linda is a pompous as(among other things)
"""Serious charges being made here....might even encourage more to vote FOR Nader ...if they believe the dems are becoming obstructionists.""!?
( I can just see her heels clicking together)
Oh, gawd , I love that "Harumph harumph serious charges being made here"
Geez Louise, Bush gets us in a war killing thousands and she thinks this nader #*!@ is serious!?( I can just see her heels clicking together)
posted on July 10, 2004 05:18:43 PM new
rusty - I'll keep my answer on topic and say NADER has said it many, many times. He's always pointing out that's why he's attempting to run....because HE sees very little difference between the dems and the reps when it comes to corp. sponcership.
YOU might even want to 'research' it on his website. I've done my own research, thank you.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:23:39 PM newNo one has really spoken about the fall of the Bush Administration as it nears.
That's because we don't believe it's going to ever happen. You'll see this President's numbers come up after the republican convention. So enjoy yourself until then. They'll get the message out and more will see how disingenous the democratic party really is.
posted on July 11, 2004 10:13:30 AM new
Linda K- Once again, another neo-con who ignores what a liberal has to say or at the very least turns it around to make it their own idea. Come on Linda, you seriously don't believe the crap you feed here do you? You should be frightened as to how obvious your facade really is Linda.
I guarantee you if there was a right winged candidate who could pull votes from Bush, you'd be screaming your head off. Have you even read any of my posts regarding this subject. Here is a refresher of my very own insight regarding Nader. Keep in mind, I voted for Nader last election, and am steeped in years of following his legacy.
"I still think that Nader deserves to be on the ballot in every state. Who can argue that any man wishing to run for President shouldn't be if he qualifies?"
"I don't believe Nader ever felt that he was a spoiler in the last election. I do think he was sincere in trying to create change and was dead on in saying there were little differences in political policy making between the Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have done little to improve the growing corporate takeover of America."
"This time around is a different story altogether. I really think Nader may be pushing to make a very bold statement. What if Nader's tactic is to put Bush in the White House for another four years? What if Nader believes that by making America go so far to the right (wrong), that it will anger so many fence-sitters, so many liberals and even 1/4 of Republicans that they would never vote for a Republican again. Perhaps his goal is to create change by creating chaos. Maybe he is using a tactic often referred to as 'one step back, two steps forward'. "
fenix - The dems weren't going to these extreme measures in 2000. It's like they've got a 'mission' now...a vendetta. 
If you will recall, it was Republican minions who broke into the Democratic Party's National Committee offices in the Watergate hotel in 1972 with the intention of bugging them. There was also a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats.